Where do the Diamondbacks rank in the 2000's?
With the decade coming to a close, it’s inevitable that fans will attempt to categorize, rank, and analyze the Decade That Was. The behavior isn’t unique to baseball fans, but we perhaps take (and talk) it to a different level. The first and most immediate debate is: “Who is the Team of the Decade?” Since there can be, by definition, only one Team of the Decade, that leaves the other 29 fan-bases to wonder: “now, just where the hell does my team rank?”
So that’s what I’m going to attempt to do. First, I’m focusing only team achievements. Individual awards are nice, but quite frankly don’t mean a hill of beans in this discussion. You can collect all the foil Charzards you want, and it’ll cost you some serious coin, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get beat by pure luck or a better strategy. That’s just how games like this are played.
The first decade of the 2000’s was a time marked by a certain level of parity, at least on the World Series level. Fourteen different teams won pennants and the chance to represent their league in the Fall Classic. As most of us remember, or at least have heard, the Diamondbacks were one of these teams.
For the sake of argument, I’m going to disregard any team that didn’t make the World Series for “Who’s Better, Who’s Best.“ The Atlanta Braves probably had a better overall decade than the Florida Marlins, since the latter only made it to the playoffs once in the decade. A more complete argument might be made if we start including team winning percentages or other deeper statistics, but for the sake of length I’m going to limit this to only championship teams.
Like nearly any ranking, there are two extremes: those that have won multiple titles, and those that didn’t win any. At this point the teams can be divided into three categories: multiple titles, one title, no titles. From there, we should be able to rank the teams by category, creating an overall ranking.
The top tier is a small group of two: the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. Both won two titles, so they’re effectively “tied” in that regard, but the Yankees begin to separate themselves when we consider other things. The Yankees won 8 AL East titles in the 00’s, to the Red Sox 2. The Yankees also won four AL Pennants, going 2 out of 4 in the World Series for the 00’s. The Red Sox have a better average, but only appeared twice. That essentially brings the list to:
1. Yankees
2. Red Sox
The other group that should be fairly easy to separate out is those that didn’t win a title: the Mets, the Giants, the Astros, the Tigers, the Rockies, and the Rays. At the bottom of the list will be a battle between two woeful franchises: the Tigers and the Rays. Both were only in the playoffs once in the 00’s, made a run to the World Series, and then promptly lost. The Rays, however, did win one AL East title to put them a hair ahead of the Tigers. You could argue that the Tigers should be slightly ahead, though, given that the Tigers were in the race right down to the wire twice (2006 and 2009, where they lost a playoff to the Twins).
13. Rays
14. Tigers
Next up has to be the Rockies. They made the playoffs twice in the 00’s, but both times were as a Wild Card. Just hovering above them, however, would be the Mets, who also made the playoffs only twice but at least won a NL East title once. Both the Giants and the Astros were in the playoffs 3 times, but the Giants get the edge with their two NL West championships.
9. Giants
10. Astros
11. Mets
12. Rockies
Now we get in the meat of things. The remaining six teams all won one World Series in the 00’s, true, but then had varying degrees of success after this. At the bottom of this pile should be the Marlins, who are the winning versions of the Rays and the Tigers in that they only made the playoffs once but went all the way. It’s a tough pick between the White Sox and Diamondbacks, who both made the playoffs three times, all by winning their division. I would give the Diamondbacks a slight edge with their two League Championship appearances, but the White Sox also have one more winning season (7) than the D’backs.
The Angels might have more overall playoff appearances than the Phillies (6 to 3), but the latter has the advantage of winning two NL Pennants. Still, the Angels have a impressive record with 5 AL West titles, 1 AL Pennant, and 1 World Series win. So it comes down to the Phillies and Cardinals, who have both appeared in 2 World Series during the 00’s, and both went 1-1. Oddly enough, both lost their Series against one of the two teams that had 2 World Series titles for the decade (Cardinals to the Red Sox, and Phillies to the Yankees). The Cardinals clearly had the better decade, however. The Red Birds tallied up 6 NL Central titles and a Wild Card, to the Phillies’ 3 NL East wins.
3. Cardinals
4. Phillies
5. Angels
6. Diamondbacks
7. White Sox
8. Marlins
So overall, the Diamondback’s didn’t fare so bad. Three NL West crowns, two LCS appearances, 1 NL Pennant, 1 World Series win, and 6 winning seasons. By my oh-so-scientific ranking, I’m putting them at #6 for the Decade, which is pretty darn good.
Where do you think the Diamondbacks rank?
The LIST:
1. Yankees
2. Red Sox
3. Cardinals
4. Phillies
5. Angels
6. Diamondbacks
7. White Sox
8. Marlins
9. Giants
10. Astros
11. Mets
12. Rockies
13. Rays
14. Tigers
As an aside, the Diamondbacks are about the middle of the pack if you rank the decade by wins overall. It should be also noted that the top three teams in wins also were the top three in my ranking.
0 recs |
36 comments
|
Comments
No dodgers on the list
I like
Bring back the Baltimore Chop!
by dima1109 on Nov 11, 2009 10:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Winners only!
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 11, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And
No Cubs, either.
"Spam headline: 'YOU ARE CHOSEN!' Oh, Morpheus, you're getting pretty lazy."
"Or they are informing you you are Jewish in a very lame conversion campaign."
"In either case, sending me spam is not the way to invite me to Zion."
by kishi on Nov 12, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A really fun read. Thanks soco!
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 11, 2009 11:00 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Arizona ahead of Chicago?
The White Sox had similar numbers to the Diamondbacks but were clearly more consistent. Three-time divisional champions and one time national champion keep the matchup close but Chicago takes the cake with eight winning (seven if you don’t consider .500 as “winning”) seasons all while never losing more than 90 games.
Sticking with that concept I’d have to put the Angels ahead of the Phillies as well. If, say, Los Angeles had never managed to win a pennant or a championship I would give the edge to Philadelphia, but with that not being the case I give the slight edge to the halos for their impressive consistency.
And lastly, my last tweak would be to drop the Rays and replace them with the Braves. Again, with consistency in mind, Atlanta was amazing for a half decade. Six consecutive NL East crowns along with two 100+ win seasons defeats Tampa Bay’s one pennant after eight horrific seasons.
So with the minor changes:
1. Yankees
2. Red Sox
3. Cardinals
4. Angels
5. Phillies
6. White Sox
7. Diamondbacks
8. Marlins
9. Giants
10. Astros
11. Mets
12. Rockies
13. Tigers
14. Braves
The Rockies and Tigers were pretty much interchangeable but I left it as is and give Colorado the edge with the additional playoff appearance.
Wear your own fur.
by Sprankton on Nov 12, 2009 1:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
It was
a toss up, but 7 winning seasons to 6 isn’t that big of a gap. I was also putting more weight to pennants then to division titles, hence why the Phillies beat out the Angels, though it could have gone either way.
You’d have to put the Braves above the Tigers, too, since the Tigers and Rays were virtually the same.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 8:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say the White Sox and DBacks are mirror images
in at least results. Add a DH to the ‘Backs and put them in the American League Central or take away the DH from the Sox and put them in the NL West and I think you get similar results. Who is the better team depends really on what you place a higher value on and which league/division you favor. I don’t know about you but I’m not too miffed if someone compared the DBacks to the ChiSox. So rank them 6a and 6b, they’re the same team in different leagues.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
by AJforAZ on Nov 12, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think
we are definitely close to 6 for the success, but you cannot dispute the horrific couple seasons we had. i would still put us in the top 10 for the world series win and the division wins.
by rapdawg on Nov 12, 2009 10:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I was surprised when I finished the piece and the Diamondbacks were 6th. I guess the couple bad seasons felt bad enough to make the rest of the decade feel worse, and it probably doesn’t help that we just came out of a disaster of a season.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the comparative lack of success in the middle of the decade, it’s surprising that the Yankees take home the team of the decade crown. Definitely looked like the Red Sox would be that team in the fall of 2007.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 12, 2009 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'd still give it to the RedSox
only because I hold the Yankees to a much higher standard. With the payroll disparity they have to be held to a higher standard. It isn’t impressive when a marathon runner walks, it is impressive when someone suffering from paralysis does. Not saying that the RedSox were necessarily handicapped compared to the rest of the league, but the Yankees were the 6 million dollar man in comparison and could only win 2 championships to bookend the decade. 1.5 billion dollars, 2 championships, unsuccessful decade.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
by AJforAZ on Nov 12, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if "lack of success" is fitting
No AL pennants between 2003 and 2009, but they did win the AL East every year except ’07 and ’08, and only missing the playoffs once in a decade is fairly impressive.
"Spam headline: 'YOU ARE CHOSEN!' Oh, Morpheus, you're getting pretty lazy."
"Or they are informing you you are Jewish in a very lame conversion campaign."
"In either case, sending me spam is not the way to invite me to Zion."
by kishi on Nov 12, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hence “comparative” (that is compared to their prolific success in the late 90’s, early 2000’s).
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 12, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah
I was thinking in comparison to the rest of the league in the 2000s.
"Spam headline: 'YOU ARE CHOSEN!' Oh, Morpheus, you're getting pretty lazy."
"Or they are informing you you are Jewish in a very lame conversion campaign."
"In either case, sending me spam is not the way to invite me to Zion."
by kishi on Nov 12, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the difference between them in the 90s and now
is they did it right in the 90s. Homegrown talent supplemented with veteran/good value free agents. Now its a team of veteran/over valued FAs supplemented by replacement level home grown talent. An inefficient business model to say the least.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
by AJforAZ on Nov 12, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice
Sparked by this and the MVP vote just posted, I think soco’s next piece should be an article putting together the ‘Team of the Decade,’ based on the performances of individual players. Who was the best catcher, for example? That’d make for interesting discussion, I think.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 12, 2009 11:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
National League/American League
or an All-Pro team? All-Pro is Joe Mauer in my book.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
by AJforAZ on Nov 12, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
that would be interesting. It’ll probably take a lot longer, though!
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball Reference Play Index
Would be a good place to start. See the table in the MVP piece – you can break the numbers down by position, see who’s been the best at each spot. You should have the SB Nation communal login.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 12, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
but the variables need to make decisions for this piece was fairly easy. To compare dozens of players for each position will certainly take more effort, but not one I’m afraid of undertaking. Just don’t expect it for a couple weeks.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For your consideration
Highest OPS+ from 2000-09 (min 2000 PAs)
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 12, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But
I’m not going to just look at one number, otherwise what’s the point? Unless you want me to just poop it out.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hence "for your consideration"
I would certainly also be taking things like defense into play. And while Bonds might have the best OPS+ of them all, would you want him on your team?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 13, 2009 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll get you started: Pujols at 1B.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 12, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
I’m going to leave him off just to see the outrage.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right. I probably spoke too soon. Might I suggest Travis Lee instead?
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 13, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a few corrections
You might want to double check your numbers on a few things, soco- the Red Sox only have one AL East title, and the Yankees are 2-2 in the World Series this decade, not 2-4. Also, when you’re talking about the Marlins, you’ve got a “when” instead of a “went”.
But otherwise a good article. I’m in favor of any system that points out we’re the best in the division.
"Spam headline: 'YOU ARE CHOSEN!' Oh, Morpheus, you're getting pretty lazy."
"Or they are informing you you are Jewish in a very lame conversion campaign."
"In either case, sending me spam is not the way to invite me to Zion."
by kishi on Nov 12, 2009 12:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ah yes
the 2-4 I meant 2 out of 4. To be fair, though, I did send it to Jim first, so I blame him for not catching any errors.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, it's the American League
What do I know about that?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 12, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Intersting piece, thought of it
When i saw the following “poll” on azcentral.com on how the locals see ALL the teams. Hate to say it, but even with the success Soco points out, it looks to be a “what have you done for me lately?” city. Not that it is a huge surprise.
the question
The Suns, Coyotes and Cardinals are all winning. Which pro team reigns in Arizona?
Arizona Cardinals.
Arizona Diamondbacks.
Phoenix Coyotes.
Phoenix Suns.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Phoenix Suns.
51.34%
Arizona Cardinals.
34.90%
Arizona Diamondbacks.
8.72%
Phoenix Coyotes.
5.03%
Total Votes: 298
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 12, 2009 7:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well
the Suns are hard to argue with, but the Diamondbacks should be numero 2. On the other hand, the NFL is the by far the most popular league, so maybe local NFL fans are glad to finally have a team to root for bandwagon. I know a ton of people that started paying attention to the Cards this year.
I am Shiva the Destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening.
by soco on Nov 12, 2009 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re: Suns
cannot argue with 40+ years of history. This town will go total bonkers when they finally win their championship.
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 13, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 























